Support NeoGAF

[DeltaPolarBear]

Because if men are making it into senior leadership and women aren't, that indicates that the two genders are not being treated equally.

Having 100% male leadership is a symptom, not the cause.

You are completely wrong. I am in a woman-dominated career in my country, and my graduation jacket is female with the zipper on the opposite side to a men's jacket. No one offered to give me a jacket that is designed for a man. and yet there is no one trying to "fix" my profession to have more men in the rule to make it more 50/50.

You are blind to the fact that women have options and will selectively work where they want to work. And that male dominance in rules is not because women are weeded out but because the tasks in that job doesn't appeal to women. Men work because the only other option is prison. Men HAD to work. And because men had to work, men show up to job interviews for every kind of job. Women work as an OPTION, and that means there are jobs that women smartly choose not to apply for. And one common factor is that women refuse to work their way up from the bottom as a peon. Because if work is optional why would anyone just start from the ground floor? So now women get given middle management from the start because that is the lowest role most women are willing to apply.

Of course there are exceptions. Hell, i am an exception. i am a man in a female dominated rule. I literally get told by customers to transfer the call to a female co-worker because they don't want to talk to a male. Where is MY DEI defenders?

 

[Woopah]

Maybe one reason why there's s many guys is due to natural experience.

More men work, more men dont go on mat leave, and a lot of execs are old white haired guys who have 50 years of experience.
50/50 population doesnt mean much because not all jobs are 50/50 in applications and interest. That's like saying teaching, nursing and shipping and receiving workers should be 50/50 because the general population is around 50/50.

Part of working up the chain in an office environment is being aggressive. That's why guys do better. No different then reading on salary negotiations and guys are more likely to ask for more. There's no law that says only guys can ask for more. So IMO a reason why women do worse in the office roles is lack of confidence. Which is what I said to you in an early post where if a woman thinks just because a company has lots of guys they get scared off or think something dubious is happening. If that's how she (or anyone feels), she's going to be queasy at a lot of things in life because there's lots of things that skew to guys. Just as there's some things that skew t women.

If she feels uneasy being around guys, but seemingly ok with women she's not acting normal. That's actually a bigoted gut feeling. I've had my share of men, women, white people and minority background all being my boss at some point in my career. Didnt care or think of it weird one bit.

Exactly! So to solve this we need to create an environment where women have equal opportunities to get experience.

Men and women should both be able to take parental leave, without it negatively affecting their career.

Men and women shoupd pay rises based on actual talent/merit instead of who is the most aggressive.

If you have an office environment that rewards aggression, then yeah that would likely give more opportunities to men (of course you can have aggressive women and unagressive men too).

That's actually a big focus of the DEI work I've seen from various companies, is to create an environment where everyone feels confident and safe to speak up, share ideas, make contributions etc. etc. and it's not just the people who are the loudest or the most extroverted

It's much better to have a company where everyone feels confident and comfortable at work.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Exactly! So to solve this we need to create an environment where women have equal opportunities to get experience.

Men and women should both be able to take parental leave, without it negatively affecting their career.

Men and women shoupd pay rises based on actual talent/merit instead of who is the most aggressive.

If you have an office environment that rewards aggression, then yeah that would likely give more opportunities to men (of course you can have aggressive women and unagressive men too).

That's actually a big focus of the DEI work I've seen from various companies, is to create an environment where everyone feels confident and safe to speak up, share ideas, make contributions etc. etc. and it's not just the people who are the loudest or the most extroverted

It's much better to have a company where everyone feels confident and comfortable at work.

I partially agree with this.

I'm all for fair policies and such. But you cant discount or throw in the garbage absolute facts and experience. If guys work more (which can include even covering for any female on mat leave), you cant tell the guy when it comes to promotion time "Hey sorry bud, while Susan was on mat leave and you and the others covered for her for 12 months (Canada is 52 or 78 week mat leave), we cant count that as a job well done holding the fort. So let's all ignore everyone's past 12 months of work. We're going to hold off on awarding the promotion to anyone working and give it to Susan when she's back".

If Susan is off for a year, while other people did a great job and someone now deserves it, Susan doesnt get it.

And then you got serial mat leavers who have 3 kids all in a row. I know people who had 3 kids and were on mat leave longer than working. All that did was mess up the department every year as some people had to cover for her accounts (sales people) for the same account again on the next mat leave stint.

 

[Lord Panda]

I partially agree with this.

I'm all for fair policies and such. But you cant discount or throw in the garbage absolute facts and experience. If guys work more (which can include even covering for any female on mat leave), you cant tell the guy when it comes to promotion time "Hey sorry bud, while Susan was on mat leave and you and the others covered for her for 12 months (Canada is 52 or 78 week mat leave), we cant count that as a job well done holding the fort. So let's all ignore everyone's past 12 months of work. We're going to hold off on awarding the promotion to anyone working and give it to Susan when she's back".

If Susan is off for a year, while other people did a great job and someone now deserves it, Susan doesnt get it.

And then you got serial mat leavers who have 3 kids all in a row. I know people who had 3 kids and were on mat leave longer than working. All that did was mess up the department every year as some people had to cover for her accounts (sales people) for the same account again on the next mat leave stint.

Parental leave is a complex issue, especially since, historically, women have often faced career setbacks when starting a family. The whole purpose behind parental leave was to help reduce the stigma that forces women to choose between advancing their careers and having children. And with birth rates declining across much of the Western world, supporting families is more crucial than ever.

I understand your concern about “serial maternity leavers”, but a well-organised company should have structures in place to manage these situations. The main challenges usually lie in effective handovers and ensuring the stand-in staff are adequately trained. Most temporary hires understand the nature of the role and are prepared for it.

Here in Australia, there are federal parental leave payments and legislative protections, along with workplace provisions often negotiated between employers and unions. These measures are there to ensure that parents can have families without being unfairly disadvantaged in their careers. That said, despite these protections, my wife and I still feel a bit guilty, as if we’re somehow leaving our workplaces in the lurch, or that our choice to have kids might cost us opportunities or be held against us. But, from experience, as long as you give your workplace ample notice (on when you're leaving and if/when you're coming back), most decent places will just roll with it and plan accordingly without any malice—though perhaps we’ve just been lucky in our workplaces.

 

[BbMajor7th]

We didn't start DEI in 2024, but actions that happened many years ago still have an effect today.

And it's not just my company and not just something happening in the 70s.

For example, in 2017 54 of the UK's biggest companies had Executive Committees that had no women at all. 15 of the 350 biggest companies had female CEOs.

It's not because these companies lack basic compliance policies that have existed for decades. Clearly those polices don't sort the issue.

That's very unlikely in a situation where the 50% of the population who are women have exactly the same opportunities as the other 50% of the population.

The fundamental fallacy at play here is the lack of control of variables and the assumption that a single difference between two groups is indicative of some impediment being applied on one side and not another.

For example, suicide rates among men are far higher in western societies than among women. School shootings, aggravated assault, incarceration... Men outperform women breathtakingly in these areas and many others, but only a madman would conclude 'there must be some barrier stopping women for doing the same'.

The difference is accountable to a laundry list of variables that are little to do with access or barriers and almost entirely accountable to nature, culture and socialisation. This is almost certainly true for the job market too.

In western societies, even in the year of our lord, 2024, women and men are still socialised and regarded in wildly different ways to one another. The aspirational models remain worlds apart and are unlikely to change because the people pushing for that change are inherently chauvinistic.

How so? In that almost every gender equality push involves giving women what men have traditionally aspired to, never do I hear about men being given more of what women have. Why? Because most gender equality advocates think the male model is the apex that all should rightly aspire to and by corollary that nothing that is traditionally the preserve of women is worth a damn.

Emotional intelligence, pastoral support, professional caregiving, therapeutics and cosmetics, education - all great things that women over index in, that can never been seen as valuable or worthy of esteem by wider society. No, any person displaying those qualities is to be encouraged towards wealth, leadership, power and positions of influence.

And society says but 'oh, fashion and cosmetics are superficial' despite the fact that a number in a bank account is largely the same - yet we admire the latter the bigger it gets, even when it's become so big that it's meaningless and morally dubious. In fact, we're so enamoured we wonder why women's numbers aren't this big.

And so it goes, I'm rambling, but the TL;DR is that your problem isn't barrier in one organisation or another, it's a fundamental social reality reinforced even by systems that aim to combat it.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Parental leave is a complex issue, especially since, historically, women have often faced career setbacks when starting a family. The whole purpose behind parental leave was to help reduce the stigma that forces women to choose between advancing their careers and having children. And with birth rates declining across much of the Western world, supporting families is more crucial than ever.

I understand your concern about “serial maternity leavers”, but a well-organised company should have structures in place to manage these situations. The main challenges usually lie in effective handovers and ensuring the stand-in staff are adequately trained. Most temporary hires understand the nature of the role and are prepared for it.

Here in Australia, there are federal parental leave payments and legislative protections, along with workplace provisions often negotiated between employers and unions. These measures are there to ensure that parents can have families without being unfairly disadvantaged in their careers. That said, despite these protections, my wife and I still feel a bit guilty, as if we’re somehow leaving our workplaces in the lurch, or that our choice to have kids might cost us opportunities or be held against us. But, from experience, as long as you give your workplace ample notice (on when you're leaving and if/when you're coming back), most decent places will just roll with it and plan accordingly without any malice—though perhaps we’ve just been lucky in our workplaces.

We all agree that society needs more children, so the fact that companies are absorbing the inconvenience just means that governments should compensate companies more.

If the nation want more children, the nation should fund it. More money to parents and more reimbursement for companies that had female employees who gives birth.

As I already said earlier, my career is generally female-oriented. So my managers are always juggling maternity leaves every year. Since hiring women is the norm, the need to handle maternity leave is standard practice. Also many ended up becoming part-timers and that is, once again, just treated as normal in that business. There isn't enough applicants as it is, so trying to avoid hiring women would be company suicide. There is not enough men signing up and there is no DEI initiative to encourage it.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Parental leave is a complex issue, especially since, historically, women have often faced career setbacks when starting a family. The whole purpose behind parental leave was to help reduce the stigma that forces women to choose between advancing their careers and having children. And with birth rates declining across much of the Western world, supporting families is more crucial than ever.

I understand your concern about “serial maternity leavers”, but a well-organised company should have structures in place to manage these situations. The main challenges usually lie in effective handovers and ensuring the stand-in staff are adequately trained. Most temporary hires understand the nature of the role and are prepared for it.

Here in Australia, there are federal parental leave payments and legislative protections, along with workplace provisions often negotiated between employers and unions. These measures are there to ensure that parents can have families without being unfairly disadvantaged in their careers. That said, despite these protections, my wife and I still feel a bit guilty, as if we’re somehow leaving our workplaces in the lurch, or that our choice to have kids might cost us opportunities or be held against us. But, from experience, as long as you give your workplace ample notice (on when you're leaving and if/when you're coming back), most decent places will just roll with it and plan accordingly without any malice—though perhaps we’ve just been lucky in our workplaces.

I get it that someone going on leave shouldnt get nailed to the cross. In Canada, the laws I believe are 52 or 78 week leave. And when the parent comes back, the company must give them an equal kind of job rank. Not necessarily the same job, but at least something comparable so they dont get demoted or get less money. And you cant fire someone for going on mat leave either. And I agree with those laws.

But since women are the ones who go on mat leave more which does screw up their career, I dont see how anyone at the office slogging it out (doesn' matter if it's a man or woman with no kids) without going on leave and may even be the ones who cover for them because not all companies do 12 month contract stints, can purposely be held back because a mat leave person at home for 12 months gets family life and awarded extra bonus pts saved up so that people at the office who didnt go on leave cant get a promotion instead.

Thats probably why people on mat leave feel bad. They are on mat leave and other people at the office get promoted while they are at home the past 12 months. Well, nobody said a company cant promote people until every mat leave person is back to work. It's an ever flowing cycle of people hired, fired, changing job roles internally or promotions.

To me, it's their choice of family life. Just as it's other people's choice of career life.

It'd be no different than someone going on sick leave for 9 months being granted a gimme for promotions consideration, when 99% of the other people at the company work every day.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Having children is going to affect a woman's career, there is no way around it.

It is the job of the government to reward those who gave birth to compensate for what they sacrificed. i truly believe that. Because if it is good for the nation, then the nation should pay for the privilege.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Having children is going to affect a woman's career, there is no way around it.

It is the job of the government to reward those who gave birth to compensate for what they sacrificed. i truly believe that. Because if it is good for the nation, then the nation should pay for the privilege.

I agree too. But pending the country, some govs are more giving than others.

In Canada, there's been some changes lately to giving people under 18 more medical perks, but traditionally for decades, Canada's system is as follows as the gov tries to push as much every day medical costs and mat leave pay on companies.

- Mat leave pay is limited by the gov (basically similar to Unemployment Insurance pay). Employees wanting big top up pay comes from the employer (some do it, some dont, some partial)

- Universal Health Care isnt as universal as it seems. Pretty sure Europeans in some countries get better. Doctor visits, surgery and drugs administered in hospitals are covered. But meds at home, dental, and eyecare benefits are mostly paid by employers and it's not 100% coverage (there's annual limits and deductions most of the time unless you work for an awesome company that covers 100% all the time). Even something like crutches for a broken leg costs money! And so does an ambulance picking you up! There are exceptions. People under 18 now have expanded coverage, and if youre I think a senior citizen or on social assistance, you are covered too.

 

[Sinfulgore]

When an employee leaves, we have to spend time and money replacing them, which is bad for the company. That's not an assumption that's a fact.

It's much better for us when colleagues stay and develop with us for a long time.

Maybe i'm not explaining well enough, but neither me nor the company are thinking "I wish more older people worked here" or "I wish more of our colleagues had a disability".

What we are thinking is:

1. We want to hire and develop the best possible people, regardless of whether they have a disability or are neurodiverse.

2. We want all employees to be happy, engaged and working hard for the company, regardless of whether they have a disability or are neurodiverse.

Does that make things clearer?

It's not clear because "we want to hire and develop the best possible people" and " I want my company to be inclusive and equitable for people who have a disability, are over 50 or are neurodiverse" are very different. For your company to be inclusive and equitable for people who have a disability, are over 50 or are neurodiverse you would need to hire these groups of people first right? Some companies aren't going to outright hire someone simply because they fit whatever group they are looking to hire but it will have an impact on hiring decisions whether consciously or subconsciously.

If all or the vast majority of your leadership are coming from only one gender, you need to look into why that is.

30-40% of the office employees were women, yet less than 5% of the senior leadership were women.

What's your alternative reason for that situation? That its one massive, ongoing coincidence?

Because if everyone is treated fair and square without bias, the senior leadership would be more reflective of the company.

If 30-40% of your office employees are women, why are so few entering senior leadership? That is a symptom of some barriers.

This is the root problem with DEI. DEI is based on flawed logic and the people who support it can't see that. This is the same logic feminists use with the gender pay gap, the average male salary is higher than women therefore it must be sexism causing this disparity. We also see this same kind of thinking when people talk about the disparity between White and Black people. Find a disparity between groups of people then just make up whatever you think is the cause that pushes whatever agenda you are trying to push. In reality, disparities are far more complex than a "barrier" being the reason for the disparity. People are individuals and it's their choices that determine their outcomes.

No one can really answer your questions here because you don't give much actual data. We would need to know if those leadership positions were promotions or outside hires as well as how many women applied for each leadership position. Just because a company has 30-40% women doesn't mean they would be good candidates to be managers or supervisors. This is what fuels the flawed logic of DEI, it's not based on meaningful data, it's just an assumption based on demographics. People aren't robots who will all make the same decisions given the same opportunities.

 

[//DEVIL//]

That's a man.

Don’t fucking scare me . Now I have doubts -_-

 

[Woopah]

You are completely wrong. I am in a woman-dominated career in my country, and my graduation jacket is female with the zipper on the opposite side to a men's jacket. No one offered to give me a jacket that is designed for a man. and yet there is no one trying to "fix" my profession to have more men in the rule to make it more 50/50.

You are blind to the fact that women have options and will selectively work where they want to work. And that male dominance in rules is not because women are weeded out but because the tasks in that job doesn't appeal to women. Men work because the only other option is prison. Men HAD to work. And because men had to work, men show up to job interviews for every kind of job. Women work as an OPTION, and that means there are jobs that women smartly choose not to apply for. And one common factor is that women refuse to work their way up from the bottom as a peon. Because if work is optional why would anyone just start from the ground floor? So now women get given middle management from the start because that is the lowest role most women are willing to apply.

Of course there are exceptions. Hell, i am an exception. i am a man in a female dominated rule. I literally get told by customers to transfer the call to a female co-worker because they don't want to talk to a male. Where is MY DEI defenders?

How would this apply to apply to a company where there are lots of women working there already?

If 5% workforce are women and 5% of the leadership are women, that make sense. But if 40% of your workforce are women and and 0% of your leadership are women, then there's an issue. Factors like "the job doesn't appeal to women" or "men need to work to avoid prison" don't apply. There has to be other factors that explain it.

Of course there are exceptions. Hell, i am an exception. i am a man in a female dominated rule. I literally get told by customers to transfer the call to a female co-worker because they don't want to talk to a male. Where is MY DEI defenders?

Sounds like you are being discriminated against and that is something DEI should be helping you with.

I partially agree with this.

I'm all for fair policies and such. But you cant discount or throw in the garbage absolute facts and experience. If guys work more (which can include even covering for any female on mat leave), you cant tell the guy when it comes to promotion time "Hey sorry bud, while Susan was on mat leave and you and the others covered for her for 12 months (Canada is 52 or 78 week mat leave), we cant count that as a job well done holding the fort. So let's all ignore everyone's past 12 months of work. We're going to hold off on awarding the promotion to anyone working and give it to Susan when she's back".

If Susan is off for a year, while other people did a great job and someone now deserves it, Susan doesn't get it.

I agree that maternity leave cover counts as experience. But I don't think they should dismiss the possibility of awarding the promotion to Susan when she's back.

If a promotion comes up, I would say Susan and the guys get to apply, and the best person for the job gets it. If that is Susan, then she should get the promotion while on mat leave.

Just because the promotion happened to come up while she was on leave, instead of the month before she went on leave, shouldn't reduce Susan's chance of getting the role. She still has the skills and knowledge that she before she became pregnant.

And likewise the guys should be given and encouraged to use a good level of paternity leave. And if a promotion comes up while they are on pat leave, the exact same situation should apply to them.

 

[Woopah]

The fundamental fallacy at play here is the lack of control of variables and the assumption that a single difference between two groups is indicative of some impediment being applied on one side and not another.

For example, suicide rates among men are far higher in western societies than among women. School shootings, aggravated assault, incarceration... Men outperform women breathtakingly in these areas and many others, but only a madman would conclude 'there must be some barrier stopping women for doing the same'.

The difference is accountable to a laundry list of variables that are little to do with access or barriers and almost entirely accountable to nature, culture and socialisation. This is almost certainly true for the job market too.

So to clarify, I would consider things like culture and socialisation to also count as barriers.

As you say, suicide rates are consistently far higher among men than women, and I do believe that is due to factors related to gender. That's why for the upcoming International Men's Day, my company is holding employee events around men's mental health and trying to tackle the barriers/factors that prevent men from having as low suicide rates as women.

How so? In that almost every gender equality push involves giving women what men have traditionally aspired to, never do I hear about men being given more of what women have. Why? Because most gender equality advocates think the male model is the apex that all should rightly aspire to and by corollary that nothing that is traditionally the preserve of women is worth a damn.

I would disagree with equality pushes that take this approach. One of the first DEI initiatives we had was to increase the amount of paternity we offered male colleagues, and to launch a campaign to tackle the stigma around men taking leave to spend time with newborn children and support their family.

Emotional intelligence, pastoral support, professional caregiving, therapeutics and cosmetics, education - all great things that women over index in, that can never been seen as valuable or worthy of esteem by wider society. No, any person displaying those qualities is to be encouraged towards wealth, leadership, power and positions of influence.

And society says but 'oh, fashion and cosmetics are superficial' despite the fact that a number in a bank account is largely the same - yet we admire the latter the bigger it gets, even when it's become so big that it's meaningless and morally dubious. In fact, we're so enamoured we wonder why women's numbers aren't this big.

And so it goes, I'm rambling, but the TL;DR is that your problem isn't barrier in one organisation or another, it's a fundamental social reality reinforced even by systems that aim to combat it.

Not rambling at all! I enjoyed reading it.

 

[Woopah]

It's not clear because "we want to hire and develop the best possible people" and " I want my company to be inclusive and equitable for people who have a disability, are over 50 or are neurodiverse" are very different. For your company to be inclusive and equitable for people who have a disability, are over 50 or are neurodiverse you would need to hire these groups of people first right? Some companies aren't going to outright hire someone simply because they fit whatever group they are looking to hire but it will have an impact on hiring decisions whether consciously or subconsciously.

It's not "I want my company to be inclusive and equitable for people who have a disability, are over 50 or are neurodiverse". Its "I want my company to be inclusive and equitable for everyone, regardless of whether they have disability, regardless of whether they are neurodiverse and regardless of their age."

In regards to the underlined question, the answer is no. People are who have a disability or are neurodiverse are part of the population. If you are a large company with 1000s of employees, you're likely to naturally have some of these people in the workforce.

Maybe I can explain it this way:

We want the company to be inclusive and equitable for men. This does not require us to intentionally hire more men.
We want the company to be inclusive and equitable for women. This does not require us to intentionally hire more women.
We want the company to be inclusive and equitable for people who are neurodiverse. This does not require us to intentionally hire more people who are neurodiverse.

Most of our work in this areas has absolutely nothing to do with hiring at all.

Does that help?

This is the root problem with DEI. DEI is based on flawed logic and the people who support it can't see that. This is the same logic feminists use with the gender pay gap, the average male salary is higher than women therefore it must be sexism causing this disparity. We also see this same kind of thinking when people talk about the disparity between White and Black people. Find a disparity between groups of people then just make up whatever you think is the cause that pushes whatever agenda you are trying to push. In reality, disparities are far more complex than a "barrier" being the reason for the disparity. People are individuals and it's their choices that determine their outcomes.

No one can really answer your questions here because you don't give much actual data. We would need to know if those leadership positions were promotions or outside hires as well as how many women applied for each leadership position. Just because a company has 30-40% women doesn't mean they would be good candidates to be managers or supervisors. This is what fuels the flawed logic of DEI, it's not based on meaningful data, it's just an assumption based on demographics. People aren't robots who will all make the same decisions given the same opportunities.

Its not about making up whatever you think is the cause. The right approach is to investigate and find the cause.

And you're 100% right. Questions like "are the leadership positions promotions or outside hires" and "how many women applied for each leadership position" are indeed very important questions. Those are things we looked into when we investigated.

Its going to be different for different companies. The reason could be that the men and the women in the company are roughly equal in terms of quality, but the men are much more likely than women to apply for promotion. Or it could be that the men joining the company are much more likely than women to develop the skills required to become leaders.

You find the reason / reasons, and then develop solutions.

 

[BbMajor7th]

So to clarify, I would consider things like culture and socialisation to also count as barriers.

As you say, suicide rates are consistently far higher among men than women, and I do believe that is due to factors related to gender. That's why for the upcoming International Men's Day, my company is holding employee events around men's mental health and trying to tackle the barriers/factors that prevent men from having as low suicide rates as women.

The point here is that the DEI initiatives are top-down in principle, addressing symptoms at surface rather than tackling underlying causes.

'Mental Health' is also an unhelpful abstraction that alienates a lot of men because it invites them to view thier most personal problems through another person's (somewhat trendy) lens, rather than having others actively attempt to understand men's lives. This ultimately makes many men feel more remote.

I would disagree with equality pushes that take this approach. One of the first DEI initiatives we had was to increase the amount of paternity we offered male colleagues, and to launch a campaign to tackle the stigma around men taking leave to spend time with newborn children and support their family.

Offering people more time off is not the same thing - and the stigma around paternity leave is imagined (even the manliest of MRA sorts have been bitching about this for years). My point was that DEI culture presumes the primacy of traditionally aspirational masculine values and assumes that anyone not taking an equal share of these in society is somehow losing out.

There is a completely overlooked reality of 'female privilege' - an absolute cavalcade of traditionally feminine social entitlements that absolutely would be of high desire to everyone. The freedom to care for oneself, care for others and be cared for in return, as women do is not regarded as worthwhile. Instead, we lionize the traditional masculine inducement to do anything and everything possible to push the limits of your own endurance - the absolute social injunction to prove your worth through a relentless campaign of self-abuse.

This is but a single example among hundreds. DEI takes a great interest in what women have been deprived but has no interest in what men have been deprived, because the movement is largely spearheaded by women who, very naturally, take for granted what they have always had, and within a patriarchal society internalise that male primacy.

Beyond that, it's an entirely right-wing movement - played out in the most ultra-capitalist corporate spaces among the already wealthy, who've arranged themselves into tribal cabals to lobby for ever more for themselves and their tribes at the expense of others. The culture war is entirely right-wing sectarian battle.

Meanwhile, the working classes (even the socially conservative ones) are looking on from an abandoned middle left as the elites war with each other over who should own all the money and power at the top of the economy.

 

[Sinfulgore]

It's not "I want my company to be inclusive and equitable for people who have a disability, are over 50 or are neurodiverse". Its "I want my company to be inclusive and equitable for everyone, regardless of whether they have disability, regardless of whether they are neurodiverse and regardless of their age."

In regards to the underlined question, the answer is no. People are who have a disability or are neurodiverse are part of the population. If you are a large company with 1000s of employees, you're likely to naturally have some of these people in the workforce.

Maybe I can explain it this way:

We want the company to be inclusive and equitable for men. This does not require us to intentionally hire more men.
We want the company to be inclusive and equitable for women. This does not require us to intentionally hire more women.
We want the company to be inclusive and equitable for people who are neurodiverse. This does not require us to intentionally hire more people who are neurodiverse.

Most of our work in this areas has absolutely nothing to do with hiring at all.

Does that help?

It helps but it's an entirely different statement. If you said this first I wouldn't have responded to that comment because "I want my company to be inclusive and equitable for everyone" is not the same thing as "I want my company to be inclusive and equitable for people who have a disability, are over 50 or are neurodiverse" which is what you originally said. And it doesn't matter if it is intentional or not, someone who wants to see more women in STEM for example will be more likely to hire women even if it's not intentional.

Its not about making up whatever you think is the cause. The right approach is to investigate and find the cause.

And you're 100% right. Questions like "are the leadership positions promotions or outside hires" and "how many women applied for each leadership position" are indeed very important questions. Those are things we looked into when we investigated.

Its going to be different for different companies. The reason could be that the men and the women in the company are roughly equal in terms of quality, but the men are much more likely than women to apply for promotion. Or it could be that the men joining the company are much more likely than women to develop the skills required to become leaders.

You find the reason / reasons, and then develop solutions.

Yeah, but that's what you're doing by claiming there are barriers creating the disparity. At the end of the day, this doesn't matter because like I said before this isn't a problem. There is no "correct" amount of women in leadership or neurodiverse/disabled/old employees that a company must employ and when there is no problem there is no need for a solution.

 

[Tams]

But humanity is already diverse. You don't need to disadvantage any particular group in order to have people of different age/culture/class/sexual orientation in a company.

Let's say an organisation had both men and women present in it. It also has people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s present. Who needs to be disadvantaged in order to achieve that?

I don't think any disadvantages are required.



People have always been divided into groups based on identity and been given less or more authority based on that for decades.

Tradionally, men have been given more authority than women. Therefore to achieve balance, you need to invest in boosting the authority given to women so it reaches the same level as men.

Similar for skills. If you see one half of the population is gaining coding skills at a much higher level than the other, then you can broaden your talent pool by upskilling the people who aren't tradionally getting those skills (this is what CDPR is doing).

Yes, but such discrimination of resource allocation always breeds two things:

1. Arrogance of those who are positively discriminated for.
2. Resentment of those who are negatively discriminated against.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I think in November you'll see alot of people take that case "seriously". Stop hanging out in echo chambers.

Of course not, but it paints a picture when the majority of the Demographics in this country are beneficiaries of DEI lol remember, so it merely reinforces my statement that the majority of Americans don't feel that way.

And it's November, and the majority of Americans sure did take it seriously. Echo chambers, and all that malarkey.

Be well, bud.

 

[ItJustWorks]

And it's November, and the majority of Americans sure did take it seriously. Echo chambers, and all that malarkey.

Be well, bud.

seems like low turnout for one side (Gaza grievance and more) whereas the other side stayed the same. Statistically speaking. While ironically DEI wasnt on any ballots. But go off king.

this is dangerously close to talking politics. So I'm out. But glad my post resonated with you enough emotionally that you remembered it after my inactivity for 2 months.

 

[Hawk The Slayer]

I'll see how the Witcher 4 trailer and early preview looks. I do not mind if they have non whites in part 4, never had a problem with that for movies and games. Just don't make it feel forced.

 

[Dafegamer]

Funny I remember two years ago CDPR was considered "alt-right" shows how stupid this woke/Anti-Woke bullshit thing is

 

[Dazraell]

I'll see how the Witcher 4 trailer and early preview looks. I do not mind if they have non whites in part 4, never had a problem with that for movies and games. Just don't make it feel forced.

I mean, they created an entire new region introduced in The Witcher 3 expansion in order to introduce people of color so this would be more lore friendly and not feeling forced. Ofir wasn't mentioned in Sapkowski's books and was their own invention

Heck, this country was often mentioned by fans who were asking for this place appearing in future games. If I remember correctly CDPR even did a comic set in Ofir, had expansion to Gwent focused on this region as a faction, etc. I even remember one fan from Russia who made up an entire fake design doc to show how expansion set in Ofir to Witcher 3 could work. It looked quite neat, a bit similar to Egypt from AC Origins

Funny that if they hypothetically decide to have Ofir as one of the explorable regions in this new Witcher trilogy, there will most likely be a lot of people who will start screaming and recording ragebait videos that it's a proof CDPR went full DEI and conveniently ignore that it was something introduced years earlier

 

[DeepEnigma]

seems like low turnout for one side (Gaza grievance and more) whereas the other side stayed the same. Statistically speaking. While ironically DEI wasnt on any ballots. But go off king.

this is dangerously close to talking politics. So I'm out. But glad my post resonated with you enough emotionally that you remembered it after my inactivity for 2 months.

DEI was every bit on the ballot. And it lost.

Keep kicking the can down the road, queen.

 

[Bernardougf]

DEI was every bit on the ballot. And it lost.

Keep kicking the can down the road, queen.

Eternally moving goal posts and creating alternative realities to shield yourself on is like an art to this people. Expecting a little self-awareness and "mea culpa" from them is just hopeless, specially after such an utterly and blatant defeat

 

[ItJustWorks]

DEI was every bit on the ballot. And it lost.

Keep kicking the can down the road, queen.

Once again, emotionally affected enough to resort to name calling. Anyway, show me where it was on the ballot, and lost. Because I'm not finding it. Unless you're assuming the win means the policies got less popular.

Because what's interesting, is nationally those policies were more popular amongst Americans in numerous studies conducted this year and previous years. 61% of americans in support of DEI conducted this year.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...4727744-americans-favor-dei-programs-poll/amp/


https://www.inc.com/sarah-lynch/6-10-americans-support-dei-workplace.html


https://csnews.com/majority-americans-support-workplace-dei-initiatives


https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/06/18/affirmative-action-dei-attiudes-poll/

But when you have 13 million people on one side not vote, and are more in line with 2016 numbers, whereas the other side is in line with 2020 numbers. This is what you get, but I don't think you care for that kind of nuanced discussion.

So tieing it back to the thread topic; I dont think this was about DEI in video games. Or in general really.

 

[ItJustWorks]

Eternally moving goal posts and creating alternative realities to shield yourself on is like an art to this people. Expecting a little self-awareness and "mea culpa" from them is just hopeless, specially after such an utterly and blatant defeat

Well, see post above. The popularity of policies didn't change. The electorate turnout did though...but hey some people don't like nuance. I get it.

For example, most people support higher minimum wage, believe in climate change, are pro-union shit like that, yet voted against their interests...

But we can dumb it down to "win=we don't care about those things"

 

[DeepEnigma]

Once again, emotionally affected enough to resort to name calling.

But go off king.

Typical ideologue and pseudo intellectual that likes to throw shit, then accuse others of emotions and all that trash.

Get well soon, mate.

But when you have 13 million people on one side not vote, and are more in line with 2016 numbers, whereas the other side is in line with 2020 numbers.

I wonder what that anomaly in 2020 was? Gee, I wonder.

 

[ItJustWorks]

Typical ideologue and pseudo intellectual that likes to throw shit, then accuse others of emotions and all that trash.

Get well soon, mate.

I called you a king mate lol you called me a queen as an insult. Are you confused?

 

[DeepEnigma]

I called you a king mate lol you called me a queen as an insult. Are you confused?

Why would queen be in insult?

Do you feel lesser with a female title? Are women lesser to you?

Would explain the push for sexist, racist, and bigotry of low expectation affirmative action programs like DEI.

 

[ItJustWorks]

Why would queen be in insult?

Do you feel lesser with a female title? Are women lesser to you?

Would explain the push for sexist, racist, and bigotry of low expectation affirmative action programs like DEI.

We both know that wasn't your intention, but I guess we're playing the...gaslighting game? That's fine, I'll play dumb.

Again...go off king. I hope that you thrive these 4 years. I'm glad you seem elated.

 

[DeepEnigma]

We both know that wasn't your intention

As was your "king" snark.

Self reflect, a little introspection will go a long way. It's time.

 

[hussar16]

Employers take alot of things into consideration outside the credentials when hiring. Why are we pretending that isn't a thing?

They make sure the baseline qualifications are there, and then choose who they fucking "like". There was never a meritocracy, it becomes vibes. How many jobs will hire "stans buddy that he reccomended" or "that cute girl for the office" or "man, jack was hilarious in the interview great personality". When Johnny over there went to a better school, but kinda a drag in terms of personality so they chose Larry. Johnny doesn't get that credentials aren't all that matter when interviewing. Hell, "Over-qualified" was term that existed before DEI was a thing. Thats the real world.

One company might be trying to market to women a bit more, so it is good business strategy to look for a female co marketing director to add to the staff, she brings value due to her perspective.

And thts how dei hires and hires based not on merit happen. For sure it happens at cdred.they are just luying

 

[ItJustWorks]

As was your "king" snark.

Self reflect, a little introspection will go a long way. It's time.

One was an insult. One was absolutely not. It's okay though.

Btw, did you reflect in 2018? 2020? 2022 midterms? Seemingly not. Seems like lack of reflection and doubling down can eventually net a win, so why do that? Lol

 

[DeepEnigma]

One was an insult. One was absolutely not. It's okay though.

Btw, did you reflect in 2018? 2020? 2022 midterms? Seemingly not. Seems like lack of reflection actually can eventually net a win, so why do that? Lol

Be well, bud.

 

[ItJustWorks]

Be well, bud.

Thrive mate. Congrats.

 

[DaciaJC]

I mean, they created an entire new region introduced in The Witcher 3 expansion in order to introduce people of color so this would be more lore friendly and not feeling forced. Ofir wasn't mentioned in Sapkowski's books and was their own invention

Eh, that's not true. In The Sword of Destiny, Borch Three Jackdaws says, "Beyond the seas, in Ofir and Zangvebar, there are white horses with black stripes. I haven't seen them, but I know they exist."

 

[Dazraell]

Eh, that's not true. In The Sword of Destiny, Borch Three Jackdaws says, "Beyond the seas, in Ofir and Zangvebar, there are white horses with black stripes. I haven't seen them, but I know they exist."

Huh, I could swear it was added by them. Thanks for correcting me